( I*’™ 


Asia’s  Appeal  to  America 


An  Address 

by 

Sidney  L.  Gulick 


Secretary  of  the  Commission  on  Peace 
and  Arbitration  of  the  Federal  Council  of 
the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 

Secretary  of  the  American  Branch  of  the  World 
Alliance  of  the  Churches  for  the  Promo- 
tion of  International  Friendship 


105  East  Twenty-Second  Street 
New  York  City 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/asiasappealtoameOOguli 


ASIA’S  APPEAL  TO  AMERICA. 


Sidney  !L.  Gulick. 

Secretary  of  the  Commission  on  Peace  and  Arbitration  of  the 
Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America. 

Europe’s  catastrophe  has  suddenly  shown  how 
closely  interwoven  is  the  fabric  of  the  modern  world. 
The  interlinking  of  the  life  and  interests  of  the  nations 
had  advanced  much  further  than  was  realized  Even 
Asia  begins  to  figure  as  a mighty  factor  in  occidental 
affairs.  Some  regard  it  as  ominous.  We  talk  of  the 
“yellow  peril yet  for  decades,  nay  for  centuries, 
Asiatics  have  resented  an  actual  and  progressively 
overwhelming  “white  peril.” 

On  the  one  hand  there  is  China.  Not  for  a century 
has  her  outlook  been  so  bright.  An  alien  dynasty  has 
been  driven  from  the  throne ; the  nation  is  pushing 
forward  with  remarkable  insistence  for  modern  forms 
of  government;  the  opium  curse  has  been  substantially 
eradicated;  political  graft  is  rapidly  being  eliminated, 
financial  solvency  seems  now  assured ; occidental  edu- 
cation is  proceeding  rapidly;  and  desire  for  reforms 
is  widespread.  If  China  can  ayoid  further  alien  in- 
trusion her  future  is  decidedly  hopeful. 

And  there  is  Japan.  Her  heroic  struggles  to  meet 
the  new  world-situation  that  confronted  her  when  she 
came  out  of  her  long  isolation  called  forth  deep  admir- 
ation in  America.  The  brilliant  ability  of  her  students 
and  national  leaders  and  the  whole-souled  patriotism 
of  her  people  have  received  full  recognition  and  evoked 
high  praise.  Japan,  however,  has  reached  so  high  a 
development  of  power  and  ambition  that  some  begin 
to  fear  and  suspect  her. 

A NEW  ERA  IN  HUMAN  HISTORY. 

The  adoption  by  Japan  and  China  of  the  mechan- 
ical, economic,  social  and  political  elements  of  occi- 
dental civilization  constitutes  the  beginning  of  a new 
era  in  human  history.  The  changes  rapidly  occurring 
in  Asia  demand  our  attention.  At  this  juncture,  there- 
fore, it  is  well  that  we  pause  to  consider  the  entire 
situation.  What  is  the  duty  of  America  at  this  time 


1 


in  its  relations  to  Asia?  What  responsibilities  have 
we,  if  any?  and,  what  is  even  more  pertinent,  what 
may  we  do  to  put  and  keep  ourselves  right  with  the 
Orient? 

Both  China  and  Japan  are  facing  mighty  problems. 
The  early  solution  of  those  problems  concerns,  not 
themselves  alone,  but  all  the  world.  Our  fate  is  in 
truth  involved  in  theirs.  The  urgency  accordingly  of 
their  appeal  should  command  our  earnest  and  sympa- 
thetic attention  and  secure  our  action.  Our  own  na- 
tional welfare  through  the  long  future,  no  less  than 
our  national  character,  are  intimately  involved  in  our 
response  to  that  appeal. 

China’s  appeal  for  justice  and  friendly  treatment 
was  made  decades  ago,  but  has  been  completely  ig- 
nored by  the  statesmen  and  Christians  of  America. 
Japan’s  appeal  is  more  recent.  Will  America  heed  it 
any  better? 

AMERICAN  TREATMENT  OF  CHINA. 

The  story  of  our  dealings  with  China  is  as  a whole 
one  of  which  we  need  not  be  ashamed.  We  have  not 
seized  her  territory,  bombarded  her  ports,  extracted 
indemnities  or  pillaged  her  capitals  as  have  other 
nations.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  helped  preserve 
her  from  “partition”  at  a grave  crisis  in  her  relations 
with  western  lands.  We  returned  a considerable  part 
of  her  Boxer  indemnity  that  came  to  us.  We  have 
stood  for  the  open  door  and  a square  deal.  Our  con- 
sular courts  have  been  models  of  probity  and  justice. 
The  work  of  our  missionaries  in  hospitals,  education’ 
and  in  famine  and  flood  relief  has  been  highly  ap- 
preciated. 

In  consequence  of  such  factors  the  Chinese  as  a na- 
tion hold  today  a highly  gratifying  attitude  of  friend- 
ship toward  us.  So  conspicuous  has  this  friendship 
and  preferential  treatment  become  since  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Republic  that  other  nations  have  begun  to 
note  it.  In  the  reforms  taking  place  in  China,  especi- 
ally in  her  educational  system,  in  her  political  and 


2 


social  reorganization,  and  in  her  moral  and  religious 
awakening,  the  influence  of  Americans  is  far  beyond 
that  exercised  by  any  other  people. 

When  we  turn,  however,  to  the  story  of  what  many 
Chinese  have  suffered  here,  our  cheeks  tingle  with 
shame.  The  story  would  be  incredible  were  it  not 
overwhelmingly  verified  by  ample  documentary  evi- 
dence. Treaties  have  pledged  rights,  immunities  and 
protection.  They  have,  nevertheless,  been  disregarded 
and  even  knowingly  invaded;  and  this  not  only  by 
private  individuals,  but  by  legislators,  and  administra- 
tive officials.  Scores  of  Chinese  have  been  murdered, 
hundreds  wounded  and  thousands  robbed  by  anti- 
Asiatic  mobs,  with  no  protection  for  the  victims  or 
punishment  for  the  culprits.  State  legislatures,  and 
even  Congress,  have  enacted  laws  in  contravention  of 
treaty  provisions.  Men  appointed  to  federal  executive 
offices  have  at  times  administered  those  laws  and  regu- 
lations in  offensive  methods. 

Let  us  consider  briefly  some  of  the  details  of  the 
situation.  It  will  be  well  to  premise  that  all  in  all 
Chinese  in  America  have  not  been  treated  badly.  In 
general  they  have  received  police  protection ; their 
lives  have  been  safe ; they  have  been  able  to  carry  on 
successful  business.  So  attractive  to  them  is  the  op- 
portunity of  life  here  that  they  have  stayed  on  and 
every  year  not  a few  succeed  in  smuggling  their  way 
into  our  land.  The  dark  picture  about  to  be  sketched, 
accordingly,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  describing  the 
regular  features  of  Chinese  experience. 

AMERICAN  CHINESE  TREATY  PLEDGES. 

Adequately  to  appreciate  the  full  significance  of  our 
anti-Chinese  legislation  we  must  begin  the  story  with 
a few  quotations  from  treaties  by  which  America 
invited  Chinese  to  this  country. 

Article  V.  of  the  treaty  of  1868  reads  in  part : 

“The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Emperor 
of  China  cordially  recognize  the  inherent  and  inalien- 


3 


able  right  of  man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance 
and  also  the  mutual  advantage  of  the  free  migration 
and  emigration  of  their  citizens  and  subjects  respec- 
tively . . . for  purposes  of  curiosity,  trade  or  as  per- 
manent residents.” 

But  Article  VI,  after  promising  reciprocal  “most 
favored  nation”  enjoyment  of  “privileges,  immunities 
and  exemptions,”  adds  that  this  does  not  “confer 
naturalization”  upon  their  respective  citizens.  This 
clause  doubtless  meant  that  the  mere  fact  of  residence 
in  the  other’s  land  did  not  of  itself  alone  carry  citizen- 
ship in  that  land.  For  up  till  1880  a few  Chinese  were 
granted  naturalization  in  the  United  States.  In  har- 
mony with  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  considerable 
Chinese  immigration  into  the  United  States  occurred 
during  the  seventh  and  eighth  decades  of  the  last 
century. 

Anti-Chinese  agitation  soon  developed  in  the  Pacific 
Coast  states.  Growing  violent  in  the  seventies,  it  led 
to  the  sending  of  a Commission  to  China  which  nego- 
tiated the  supplementary  treaty  of  1880. 

The  principal  provisions  of  this  treaty  are  as  follows : 

Article  I provides  that  “the  Government  of  the 
United  States  may  regulate,  limit  or  suspend  such 
coming  or  residence  of  Chinese  (laborers),  but  may 
not  absolutely  prohibit  it.  The  limitation  or  suspen- 
sion shall  be  reasonable  and  shall  apply  only  to  . . . 
laborers.” 

Article  II  provides  that:  “Chinese  laborers  who  are 
now  in  the  United  States  shall  be  allowed  to  go  and 
come  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord,  and  shall  be 
accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  ex- 
emptions which  are  accorded  to  citizens  and  subjects 
of  the  most  favored  nation.” 

Article  III  provides  that  in  case  of  ill  treatment  the 
“Government  of  the  United  States  will  exert  all  its 
power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection  and  to 
secure  to  them  the  same  rights,  privileges,  immunities 


4 


and  exemptions  as  may  be  enjoyed  by  citizens  or  sub- 
jects of  the  most  favored  nation,  and  to  which  they 
are  entitled  by  treaty.” 

Article  IV  provides  that  legislative  measures  dealing 
with  Chinese  shall  be  “communicated  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  China,”  and  if  found  “to  work  hardship  upon 
the  subjects  of  China,  consultations  shall  be  held  to 
the  end  that  mutual  and  unqualified  benefit  may  re- 
sult.” 


DISREGARD  OF  TREATY  PLEDGES. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  complete  cessation  of  Chi- 
nese labor  immigration,  and  in  spite  of  the  promises 
of  our  Government  to  provide  protection,  “and  most 
favored  nation  treatment,”  the  unjust  treatment  of 
Chinese  did  not  cease.  The  outrages  committed  on 
the  Chinese  during  the  eighties  were  even  more 
frightful  and  inexcusable  than  those  of  the  preceding 
decade. 

In  his  discussion  of  the  question  whether  the  Fed- 
eral Government  should  protect  aliens  in  their  treaty 
rights,  Ex-President  William  H.  Taft,  cites  the  cases 
of  fifty  Chinamen  who  suffered  death  at  the  hands  of 
American  mobs  in  our  Western  States,  and  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  others,  many  of  whom  were 
wounded  and  robbed  of  all  their  property.  The  list 
does  not  profess  to  be  complete.  All  these  outrages 
have  occurred  since  1885. 

“In  an  official  note  of  February  15,  1886,  riots  were 
reported  at  Bloomfield,  Redding,  Boulder  Creek, 
Eureka  and  other  towns  in  California,  involving  mur- 
der, arson  and  robbery,  and  it  was  added  that  thou- 
sands of  Chinese  had  been  driven  from  their  homes.” 

None  of  the  criminals  were  punished  in  spite  of  the 
article  in  the  treaty  which  expressly  provides  that  in 
case  “Chinese  laborers  meet  with  ill  treatment  at  the 
hands  of  other  persons,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  exert  all  its  power  to  devise  measures  for 


5 


their  protection  and  secure  to  them  the  same  rights, 
privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  as  may  be  en- 
joyed by  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  na- 
tion and  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  treaty.”  Con- 
gress, it  is  true,  has  voted  indemnities  for  families 
of  those  murdered,  but  financial  remuneration  can 
hardly  be  supposed  to  take  the  place  of  justice  or  to 
be  a substitute  for  observance  of  treaty  pledges. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Italians  and  other  aliens 
suffered  similarly  from  mob  violence  and  they  too 
were  not  protected,  nor  were  the  criminals  punished, 
and  that  therefore  China  cannot  complain  of  excep- 
tional treatment.  But  is  it  not  obvious  that  failure 
of  the  United  States  to  fulfill  its  treaty  pledges  to  Italy 
and  other  countries  in  no  wise  justifies  similar  failure 
toward  China?  Does  it  not  rather  show  that  the 
United  States  is  culpable  for  failure  to  make  adequate 
provision  for  the  faithful  performance  of  its  treaty 
pledges?  This  moral  and  legal  defect  has  become 
most  conspicuous  in  our  relations  with  China,  but  its 
culpability  is  in  no  wise  lessened — rather  it  is  aggra- 
vated— as  soon  as  it  becomes  clear  that  the  defect  is 
entirely  due  to  the  failure  of  Congress  to  take  the 
needed  action.  For  provision  for  such  action  is  made 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

ANTI-  CHINESE  LEGISLATION. 

The  failure  of  Congress  seems  inexcusable,  for  it 
found  time  to  enact  not  only  the  first  general  exclusion 
law  in  harmony  with  the  treaty  with  China,  but  also 
several  supplementary  laws,  of  which  important  claus- 
es are  admittedly  in  contravention  to  the  treaty. 

The  Scott  Law  of  1888  and  the  Geary  Law  of  1892 
are  still  in  force,  though  the  essential  injustice  of  some 
of  their  provisions  and  their  disregard  of  Chinese 
treaty  rights  are  now  recognized.  They  are  produc- 
ing constant  anti-American  feeling  among  Chinese 
legitimately  in  America.  Even  in  cosmopolitan  New 
York  and  in  Boston,  Chinese  sometimes  suffer  from  the 


6 


acts  of  federal  officers  who  supervise  Chinese  residents 
in  the  United  States,  acts,  moveover  which  are  re- 
quired by  the  laws  and  administrative  regulations 
dealing  with  the  Chinese. 

With  regard  to  the  Scott  Law,  Senator  Sherman 
said  that  it  was  “one  of  the  most  vicious  laws  that 
have  passed  in  my  time  in  Congress.”  It  was  passed 
as  a “mere  political  race  between  the  two  houses  . . . 
in  the  face  of  a Presidential  election.”  Senator  Dawes 
sarcastically  referred  to  keeping  the  treaties  as  long 
as  we  had  a mind  to.  The  law  was  “a  rank  unblushing 
repudiation  of  every  treaty  obligation  . . . unwar- 
ranted by  any  existing  danger — a violation  such  as  the 
United  States  would  not  dare  to  commit  toward  any 
warlike  nation  of  Europe.” 

With  regard  to  the  Geary  Law,  Professor  Coolidge 
makes  the  following  statement: 

“Meanwhile  the  Chinese  Minister  at  Washing- 
ton, the  Consul-General  at  San  Francisco  and  the 
Yamen  at  Peking  were  also  protesting  against  the 
act.  The  Chinese  Minister  had  steadily  protested 
ever  since  the  Scott  Act  against  the  plain  violation 
of  treaty;  just  preceeding  the  Geary  Act,  he  wrote 
six  letters  to  Mr.  Blaine  only  two  of  which  were 
so  much  as  acknowledged.  He  now  declared  that 
the  Geary  Act  was  worse  than  the  Scott  Act,  for 
it  not  only  violated  every  single  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1880  but  also  denied  bail,  required  white 
witnesses,  allowed  arrest  without  warrant  and  put 
the  burden  of  proof  on  the  Chinese.  He  quoted 
our  own  statement  on  the  harsh  and  hasty  char- 
acter of  the  act,  not  required  by  any  existing  emer- 
gency, whose  political  motive  was  well  understood 
both  in  China  and  the  United  States.  In  his  final 
protest  he  said  : ‘The  statute  of  1892  is  a violation 
of  every  principle  of  justice,  equity,  reason  and 
fairdealing  between  two  friendly  powers.’  ” 


7 


THE  SUPREME  COURT. 

Not  unnaturally,  both  the  Chinese,  and  Americans 
interested  in  maintaining  right  relations  with  China, 
looked  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  declare  unconstitu- 
tional such  laws  as  contravene  treaties — for  are  not 
treaties  “the  supreme  law  of  the  land”?  The  Chinese 
accordingly  brought  forward  a test  case  dealing  with 
certain  provisions  of  the  Scott  Act  (1888). 

Judge  Field,  who  pronounced  the  judgment  of  the 
court,  said:  “It  must  be  conceded  that  the  Act  of  1888 
is  in  contravention  of  the  treaty  of  1868  and  of  the 
supplemental  treaty  of  1880,  but  it  is  not  on  that  ac- 
count invalid.  . . It  (a  treaty)  can  be  deemed 
only  the  equivalent  of  a legislative  act,  to 
be  repealed  or  modified  at  the  pleasure  of  Congress. 

It  is  the  last  expression  of  sovereign  will 
and  must  control.”  “The  question  whether  our  gov- 
ernment was  justified  in  disregarding  its  engagements 
with  another  nation  is  not  one  for  the  determination 
of  the  courts.  . . . This  court  is  not  a censor 
of  the  morals  of  the  other  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment.” 

This  made  it  clear  that  a treaty  is  not  the  “supreme 
law  of  the  land”  except  as  Congress  makes  it  so.  Con- 
gress can,  without  violation  of  the  Constitution,  repeal 
or  amend  any  part  of  a treaty  even  without  securing 
the  consent  of  the  other  party  to  the  treaty,  and  even 
without  conference.  Treaties  are  declared  by  this  de- 
cision to  have  no  binding  power  upon  Congress.  The 
Supreme  Court  declined  to  take  note  of  the  moral 
obligations  of  treaty  pledges.  Disappointing  though 
it  may  be,  this  is  unquestionably  correct  law.  Aliens 
deprived  by  Congress  of  rights  promised  by  treaties 
may  not  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  those  rights.  The  Administration  can  indeed 
use  the  entire  military  force  of  the  country  to  make  a 
foreign  nation  observe  its  treaty  obligations  to  us,  but 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  our  Constitution, 
neither  the  Administration  nor  the  Supreme  Court  can 


8 


hold  Congress  to  the  observance  of  our  treaty  pledges. 
The  President  has  of  course  the  power  to  veto  an  act 
of  Congress,  but  experience  shows  that  even  Presi- 
dents do  not  always  regard  treaties  as  binding,  for  the 
treaty-ignoring  laws  have  been  signed  by  the  Presi- 
dents then  in  office.  This  makes  it  clear  that  the 
moral  obligations  of  our  nation  must  be  carefully  safe- 
guarded by  the  people  themselves.  We  must  hold 
our  representatives  in  Congress  to  their  moral  respon- 
sibilities in  international  as  in  all  other  relations.  This 
is  a matter  of  moral  energy not  of  law. 

AN  OMINOUS  SITUATION. 

Dr.  Bernhard  Dernberg,  defending  Germany’s  inva- 
sion of  Belgium  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  argues 
that  the  United  States  takes  the  same  attitude  toward 
treaties  as  does  Germany,  and  cites  this  very  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  rendered  by  Judge  Field.  If  we 
maintain  that  the  United  States  was  justified  in  its 
disregard  of  our  treaty  with  China,  what  right  have 
we  to  condemn  Germany  for  its  diregard  of  its  treaty 
with  Belgium?  The  degree  of  the  consequences  in- 
deed differ  enormously,  but  are  not  the  moral  issues 
identical  ? 

CONGRESS  CONTRAVENES  TREATIES. 

In  1904  Congress  again  contravened  the  treaty  with 
China.  The  treaty  (1880)  states  that  “The  United 
States  may  regulate,  limit,  or  suspend  such  coming 
or  residence  (of  Chinese  labor  immigration)  but  may 
not  absolutely  prohibit  it.  The  limitation  or  suspen- 
sion shall  be  reasonable.” 

In  harmony  with  these  explicit  provisions,  Congress 
provided  in  1882,  in  1892  and  again  in  1902  for  the  tem- 
porary suspension  of  Chinese  labor  immigration  for 
periods  of  ten  years  each.  By  1894,  however,  so  many 
of  the  laws  and  treasury  regulations  dealing  with  the 
Chinese  had  become  so  manifestly  violations  of  the 
treaty  that  a new  one  was  prepared  in  Washington 


9 


to  meet  the  difficulty,  embodying  the  principle  features 
of  the  anti-Chinese  legislation.  It  proved,  however, 
so  obnoxious  to  the  Chinese  Government  that  at  the 
first  opportunity,  namely  at  the  expiration  (1904)  of 
the  ten-year  period  for  which  the  treaty  itself  provided, 
China  denounced  the  treaty.  The  relations  of  the  two 
countries  therefore  fell  back  onto  the  treaty  of  1880, 
which  had  been  neither  rejected  nor  amended.  In  spite, 
however,  of  its  provisions  quoted  above,  Congress 
then  enacted  that  “all  laws  regulating,  suspending  or 
prohibiting  the  coming  of  Chinese  persons — are  hereby 
reenacted,  extended  and  continued  without  modifica- 
tion, limitation  or  condition”,  thus  again  plainly  con- 
travening the  treaty. 

THE  FOOTBALL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS. 

The  history  of  anti-Chinese  legislation,  as  it  has 
been  carried  through  Congress  under  the  pressure  of 
legislators  from  the  Pacific  Coast  states,  from  the 
eighth  decade  of  the  last  century  even  down  to  the 
present,  and  the  way  in  which  the  Asiatic  problem  has 
been  made  the  “football  of  party  politics”  are  ill 
omens  for  the  future  relations  of  America  with  the 
Orient.  Eight  times  in  fourteen  years  anti-Chinese 
agitation  on  the  Pacific  Coast  secured  increasingly 
drastic  and  obnoxious  legislation  in  Congress.  “All 
but  one  of  these  measures  was  passed  on  the  eve  of 
an  election  under  political  pressure  for  avowed  political 
purposes.”  That  legislation  contravened  plain  pro- 
visions of  the  treaties,  to  say  nothing  of  the  spirit, 
and  disregarded  courteous  protests  of  Chinese  mini- 
sters and  ambassadors.  China  sent  in  a “stream  of  dig- 
nified and  ineffectual  protests”.  The  Chinese  Minister 
even  charged  us  with  duplicity  in  negotiating  the 
treaty  of  1880.  “Mr.  Bayard  assured  him  that  the 
President  would  veto  any  legislation  which  might  be 
passed  in  violation  of  the  treaty.” 

If  the  faithful  observance  of  treaties  between  the 
nations  of  Europe  constitutes  the  very  foundation  of 


10 


civilization,  as  we  are  now  vehemently  told — and  this 
is  said  to  be  the  real  reason  why  Great  Britain  is  in 
the  war — is  not  the  faithful  observance  of  treaties  with 
Asiatics  the  foundation  of  right  relations  with  them? 
In  other  words,  do  not  treaties  ratified  by  Congress 
have  moral  aspects  which  should  place  them  on  a 
higher  level  of  authority  than  the  ordinary  acts  of 
Congress?  Disregard  by  Congress  of  this  funda- 
mental principle  for  the  maintenance  of  right 
international  relations  is  fraught  with  ominous 
consequences.  Congress  of  course  has  the  right  to 
abrogate  a treaty,  but  there  is  a right  way  and  also 
a wrong  way  to  do  it.  Is  it  any  more  right  for  a nation 
to  abrogate  an  inconvenient  treaty  by  simply  passing 
laws  in  contravention  to  certain  of  its  pledges  than  it 
is  for  an  individual  who  has  made  a promise  to  an- 
other individual  giving  quid  pro  quo  suddenly  and 
without  conference  to  ignore  that  promise?  Is  it  con- 
ceivable that  Congress  would  have  treated  China  as  it 
has,  had  she  been  equipped  as  Japan  is  today,  with  the 
instruments  of  occidental  civilization? 

Now  when  China  becomes  equipped  with  a daily 
press  and  adequate  world  news,  when  her  national  or- 
ganization becomes  better  unified,  more  efficient  and 
better,  equipped,  when  her  self-consciousness  is  more 
perfectly  developed,  and  when  she  learns  that  Chinese 
entering  America  have  often  suffered  ignominious 
treatment,  that  Chinese  lawfully  here  are  deprived  of 
rights  guaranteed  by  long  standing  treaties,  and  that 
privileges  granted  as  a matter  of  course  to  individuals 
of  other  nations  are  refused  to  Chinese  on  exclusively 
racial  grounds,  is  it  not  as  certain  as  the  sunrise  that 
Chinese  friendship  for  America  will  wane  and  serious 
possibilities  develop? 

Although  China’s  appeal  to  us  comes  along  many 
other  lines  also,  I shall  not  dwell  upon  them.  It  is 
enough  for  the  moment  to  note  that  there  are  such. 

Let  us  turn  next  to  American-Japanese  relations. 


11 


AMERICAN  TREATMENT  OF  JAPAN. 

For  half  a century  that  treatment  was  above  re- 
proach, and,  being  in  marked  contrast  to  that  of  other 
lands,  called  forth  a gratitude  toward,  friendship  for, 
and  confidence  in,  America  that  Americans  cannot 
easily  realize.  I must  not  do  more  than  refer  to  our 
helpful  diplomacy  and  our  welcome  to  her  students, 
giving  them  every  facility,  not  only  in  our  schools 
and  colleges,  but  in  our  factories  and  industries. 

The  mutual  attitude,  however,  of  our  two  countries 
has  begun  to  change.  Tension  more  or  less  exists  be- 
tween us  today.  Papers  in  both  countries  frequently 
assert  in  startling  headlines  that  war  is  certain.  Mul- 
titudes in  both  lands  accept  these  statements  without 
question,  and  are  developing  mutual  suspicion,  dis- 
trust, and  animosity.  False  stories  are  widely  circu- 
lated in  each  land  about  the  other,  which  are  readily 
believed. 

What  is  the  cause  of  the  new  situation?  And  what 
should  we  do  to  remedy  it?  Let  us  briefly  study 
Japan’s  problem. 

Japan  first  came  in  contact  with  the  white  nations 
of  Europe  about  1650.  For  sixty  years  they  had  free 
opportunity.  Under  the  instruction  of  Roman  Catholic 
missionaries,  many  hundred  thousand  Japanese  be- 
came Christians.  Then  Japan  took  fright  at  the  white 
man’s  methods  and  ambitions.  She  closed  her  doors, 
drove  out  the  missionaries  and  merchants,  extermi- 
nated the  Christian  religion,  and  till  1853  lived  a life 
of  almost  complete  national  seclusion.  No  Japanese 
were  allowed  to  go  abroad  nor  were  foreigners  allowed 
to  enter  her  land. 

THE  WHITE  PERIL 

All  this  was  done  to  escape  the  occidental  flood, 
which,  during  the  intervening  three  hundred  years, 
has  engulfed  the  peoples  of  North,  Central  and  South 
America,  and  large  parts  of  Africa,  Asia  and  Australia. 
China  was  forced  by  the  so-called  opium  wars  to  give 


12 


to’ white  peoples,  not  only  privileges  for  the  abomin- 
able opium  trade,  but  possession  of  ports  for  military 
and  naval  bases.  Japan,  unable  longer  to  resist  the  en- 
croachment of  foreigners,  in  1854  made  treaties.  After 
nearly  a score  of  years  of  inner  turmoil  and  a revolu- 
tion, she  frankly  accepted  the  new  world-situation  cre- 
ated by  the  white  nations,  and  undertook  to  learn  their 
methods  in  order  to  meet  them  on  a basis  of  equality. 
She  has  learned  and  is  now  equipped  with  “civiliza- 
tion,” with  bayonets,  bullets  and  battleships. 

RENEWED  AGGRESSIONS  IN  CHINA. 

In  the  nineties,  the  “powers”  of  Europe,  having  com- 
pleted their  “division  of  Africa,”  began  to  look  with 
greedy  eyes  on  China.  In  1896,  Germany,  Russia  and 
France  compelled  Japan  to  return  Port  Arthur  to 
China  in  order  to  maintain,  as  they  stated  in  their  de- 
ceitful diplomacy,  the  integrity  of  China,  and  provide 
for  the  permanent  peace  of  the  Far  East.  Then  in 
1897-1898,  Germany  took  Kiao-Chao  as  indemnity  for 
the  killing  of  two  German  missionaries.  Russia  took 
Port  Arthur  to  keep  up  the  balance,  England  took 
Wei-hai-wei  and  France,  Kwanchau.  In  each  case, 
the  impotent  Manchu  Government  made  treaties  with 
the  aggressive  “friendly  powers,”  giving  them  increas- 
ing concessions  and  privileges.  But  the  people  got 
anxious.  These  occidental  aggressions  led  (1900)  to 
the  “Boxer  Uprising.”  China’s  common  people  sought 
to  turn  the  white  man  out  and  keep  “China  for  the 
Chinese.” 

But  it  was  too  late.  Six  “civilized”  armies  marched 
up  to  Peking,  and,  to  teach  China  a lesson  regarding 
the  sacredness  of  treaties  and  the  white  man’s  “rights,” 
they  saddled  upon  China  an  indemnity  of  $682,000,000, 
far  exceeding  the  actual  costs.  Poor  China ! 

Then,  according  to  mutual  agreement,  all  the  allies 
withdrew  their  troops,  except  Russia.  Ignoring  her 
promise  she  not  only  left  her  troops  in  Manchuria,  but 
began  to  send  in  thousands  more.  Japan  got  anxious. 
Negotiations  were  started.  Russia  dallied  and  delayed, 


13 


meanwhile  increasing  her  forces,  completing  her  Si- 
berian railroad,  and  gaining  diplomatic  and  other  foot- 
holds in  Korea.  That  exasperating,  insolent  and  omi- 
nous policy  produced  the  war  with  Japan. 

THE  RUSSO-JAPANESE  WAR 

Japan  felt  that  the  complete  possession  by  Russia 
of  Manchuria,  Mongolia  and  Korea  threatened  her 
very  existence  as  an  independent  nation.  The  “parti- 
tion of  China”  also  would  be  a mere  question  of  time. 
But  Japan’s  earnest  grasp  at  “civilization”  had  been 
so  far  successful  that  single-handed,  though  indirectly 
supported  by  her  alliance  with  Great  Britain,  she  beat 
back  the  bear  from  the  north,  and  for  the  time  being 
saved,  not  only  herself,  but  also  China  from  the  im- 
pending white  peril  that  had  swept  over  all  of  South 
Asia  from  Messopotamia  to  Cochin  China  and  in  North 
Asia  from  European  Russia  to  Alaska.  In  the  mean- 
time, however,  Japan’s  own  problems  were  deepening. 

JAPAN’S  PLIGHT 

Her  population  of  50,000,000,  living  on  islands  of  less 
than  140,000  square  miles  (357  to  the  square  mile),  is 
growing  at  the  rate  of  700,000  annually.  (California, 
with  a population  of  2,500,000,  possesses  160,000  square 
miles.  England’s  population  is  356,  while  China  prop- 
er averages  less  than  250  to  the  square  mile.)  Japan’s 
mountainous  islands  are  not  naturally  fertile  nor  pos- 
sessed of  any  considerable  mineral  resources.  Japa- 
nese emigration  to  America,  Canada,  New  Zealand, 
Australia  or  Africa,  all  sparsely  peopled  and  possessed 
of  vast  natural  resources,  has  become  impossible  be- 
cause these  lands  are  held  by  white  nations  and  are 
declared  to  be  “white  man’s  lands.”  Japan’s  debt  of 
over  $1,000,000,000  was  incurred  in  resisting  the  “white 
peril,”  and  her  annual  expense  for  army  and  navy  with 
which  to  protect  herself  from  the  aggressive  peoples 
of  Europe  is  $160,000,000  annually.  Japan’s  aggre- 
gate national  wealth  is  only  about  $30,000,000,000, 


14 


while  that  of  Great  Britain  is  placed  at  some  $80,000,- 
000,000  and  that  of  the  United  States  at  $187,000,000,- 
000.  Such  is  a bare  outline  of  Japan’s  plight. 

In  the  course  of  the  history  sketched  above,  Japa- 
nese laborers  were  invited  first  to  Hawaii  and  later  to 
California.  At  first  they  were  welcomed.  But  with 
increasing  numbers  in  California  difficulties  developed. 
In  1907  the  situation  became  so  acute  that  Japan,  fear- 
ing the  consequences  and  desiring  by  every  honorable 
means  to  retain  America’s  friendship  and  show  her 
gratitude,  entered  upon  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement,” 
by  which  no  additional  Japanese  labor  immigration  to 
the  United  States  should  be  allowed. 

For  eight  years  that  agreement  has  been  strictly 
carried  out,  resulting  in  a diminution  of  Japanese  la- 
borers in  America  of  several  thousand. 

In  spite,  however,  of  these  mutually  honorable  and 
friendly  relations  of  the  two  governments,  the  anti- 
Japanese  agitation  continued  in  California  and  resulted 
in  1913  in  anti-Japanese  legislation. 

It  was  highly  resented  by  Japan  as  an  affront  to  her 
national  honor.  It  could  hardly  have  been  viewed 
otherwise  for  Japan  was  honorably  fulfilling  her 
agreement.  Japanese  in  California  were  diminish- 
ing in  number  and  the  amount  of  land  owned  by  Japa- 
nese was  a paltry  13,000  acres. 

JAPAN’S  CONTENTION. 

It  needs  to  be  clearly  understood  that  Japan  is  not 
asking  for  special  privilege  of  any  kind ; not  even  for 
free  opportunity  for  immigration. 

The  sole  point  of  Japan’s  contention  with  America 
is,  that  Japanese  already  in  America  shall  not  be  sub- 
jected to  differential  race  legislation,  which  is  naturally 
regarded  as  humiliating  and  unfriendly.  There  is  no 
immigration  question.  It  is  a question  of  national 
honor.  But  Americans  should  not  forget  that  in  spite 
of  recent  rebuff,  anti-Asiatic  legislation,  unkind  words, 


15 


a suspicious  attitude,  and  unfriendly  treatment,  there 
has  been  in  Japan  a remarkable  spirit  of  patience 
and  moderation. 

Japan  is  still  hoping  that  some  method  will  be  found 
of  providing  for  California’s  just  demands  without  sub- 
jecting her  to  humiliation.  She  has  taken  at  its  face 
value  the  first  treaty  she  ever  made  with  a white  race, 
namely,  with  America,  which  reads : “There  shall  be 
perfect,  permanent  and  universal  peace  and  sincere 
and  cordial  amity  between  the  United  States  and  Japan 
and  between  their  people  respectively,  without  excep- 
tion of  persons  and  places.”  This  friendship,  solemnly 
pledged,  has  been  loyally  maintained  by  Japan.  But 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  her  friendly  feelings  and  her 
admiration  for  America  have  considerably  cooled. 
Many  indeed  are  indignant ; all  are  waiting  eagerly  to 
learn  if  America  as  a whole  will  support  the  anti- 
Asiatic  policy  so  urgently  pressed  by  Pacific  Coast 
agitators.  Indefinite  continuation,  however,  of  Japa- 
nese patience  under  treatment  regarded  as  humiliating 
is  not  to  be  assumed. 

Japan  stands  for  national  dignity  and  honor  in  inter- 
national relations.  She  asks  for  full  recognition  among 
the  nations.  For  this  she  has  been  strenuously  striving 
for  half  a century.  Is  she  not  to  be  respected  for  it? 
Is  not  this  sensitiveness  and  insistence  one  of  the  evi- 
dences that  she  deserves  it?  Economic  opportunity  in 
California  is  not  the  point  of  her  interest  or  insistence, 
but  recognition  of  manhood  equality.  Is  not  the  honor 
of  a nation  of  more  importance  than  everything  else? 
Is  the  maintenance  of  friendship  possible  between  two 
nations  when  one  insists  on  treatment  or  legislation 
that  humiliates  the  other? 

If  now  America  desires  to  maintain  the  historic 
friendship  with  Japan  and  do  her  justice,  we  must  first 
of  all  understand  the  real  point  of  her  contention.  We 
must  look  at  the  questions  involved  from  the  stand- 
point not  only  of  our  interests  but  also  of  hers ; we 
must  gain  her  viewpoint,  appreciate  her  problems, 


16 


sympathize  with  her  efforts,  and  recognize  her  attain- 
ments. 

Such  in  bare  outlines  are  a few  of  the  multiform 
appeals  to  America  of  China  and  Japan.  In  the  brief- 
est term  we  may  say  that  they  seek  for  just  and  cour- 
teous treatment  at  our  hands.  They  are  not  demand- 
ing economic  advantages  or  opportunity,  but  human 
justice;  respect  for  them  as  men. 

How  will  America  meet  this  appeal?  Shall  we  go 
on  our  way  unheeding?  Shall  we  continue  to  disre- 
gard our  treaties  and  humiliate  our  mighty  .neighbors 
across  the  Pacific?  That  were  an  ominous  course. 

Has  not  the  time  come  for  America  to  revise  her 
Oriental  policy?  Can  we  not  find  a method  for  safe- 
guarding our  own  welfare  in  ways  that  will  neither 
humiliate  them  nor  do  them  injustice? 

HOW  SHOULD  AMERICA  RESPOND? 

First  of  all,  Americans  must  be  informed.  A cam- 
paign of  education  in  regard  to  Asiatic  relations  is 
urgently  needed. 

In  the  second  place,  we  need  a new  Oriental  policy. 
Such  a policy  would  seem  to  require : 

1.  Congressional  legislation  giving  adequate  respon- 
sibility and  authority  to  the  Federal  administration  for 
the  care  and  protection  of  aliens. 

2.  Immigration  and  other  laws  that  treat  all  races 
exactly  alike — this,  and  this  alone,  is  friendly. 

3.  The  law,  moreover,  should  admit  only  so  many 
immigrants  as  we  can  Americanize.  This  preserves 
our  institutions  and  prevents  economic  disturbance. 

I am  proposing  the  numerical  limitation  of  all  im- 
migration. Let  the  maximum  annual  male  immigra- 
tion from  any  particular  people  be  some  definite  per 
cent  (say  five)  of  the  sum  of  the  American-born  chil- 
dren of  that  people  plus  the  naturalized  citizens  of  the 
same  people. 


17 


4.  Those  who  are  admitted  should  be  aided  in  the 
process  of  Americanization. 

5.  And  when  they  have  reached  the  required  stand- 
ards of  citizenship  they  should  be  naturalized.  Qual- 
ification for  citizenship  should  be  personal.  All  who 
qualify  should  be  naturalized,  regardless  of  race. 

Would  not  such  a policy  as  this  meet  the  appeal  of 
Asia  to  the  people  of  America,  and  yet  do  it  in  such  a 
way  as  to  safeguard  all  the  real  interests  of  our  Pacific 
Coast  States? 

If,  however,  the  problems  of  Asia  arising  from  the 
white  man’s  aggressions  are  to  be  fully  met,  we  must 
do  much  more  than  has  been  thus  far  suggested. 

Steps  must  be  found  for  inducing  the  nations  to  re- 
turn to  China  what  has  been  taken  from  her:  Hong 
Kong,  Shanghai,  Port  Arthur,  Kiao-Chao,  Wei-hai- 
wei,  Kwanchau.  As  the  decades  pass,  these  foreign- 
owned  ports  will  become  increasing  causes  of  national 
resentment  and  indignation. 

If  China  can  be  given  justice  by  the  great  nations  of 
the  world  without  being  compelled  to  do  so  at  the 
point  of  Chinese  bayonets,  the  great  war  between  the 
East  and  West  will  be  averted.  If  the  West  forces 
China  into  aggressive  militarism  in  order  to  secure 
safety  and  justice,  the  future  of  the  world  is  indeed 
ominous. 

Does  not  the  United  States  have  a splendid  oppor- 
tunity for  leading  the  nations  into  a right  attitude 
toward  Japan  and  China?  How  can  she  meet  her  re- 
sponsibility and  respond  to  that  opportunity  unless  she 
first  provides  for  justice  in  her  own  relations  with 
Asia? 


18 


